PAUL J.MANJOORAN Vs. SUHAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt petition has arisen from the judgment directing the Collector to pass orders under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'KLU Order' for short). This direction was not complied citing incorporation of section 3A under Act 28 of 2008 on 17.11.2016. By passage of time, on 23.11.2016, Sec. 3A was abrogated from Act 28 of 2008. In that scenario, the original order would survive and nothing would hinder the Revenue Divisional Officer in granting permission under Clause 6 of the KLU Order.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader relying on circular dated 212016, argued that the Government has restricted extent of conversion that can be made in respect of the land that was converted before 2008. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that this circular is issued in tune with the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court, in Revenue Divisional Officer Vs. Jalaja Dileep [2015 (1) KLT 984 (SC)]. The learned Government Pleader also referred to the circular dated 1.3.2017 issued by the Revenue Department in the manner in which the application for construction of a building in a reclaimed land has to be considered and also in relation to the building constructed in such reclaimed land.

(3.) First of all it is to be noted the judgment of the Jalaja Dilieep's case (supra) only refers that in respect of the land, if the property is not included in the paddy land or wet land or data bank, the land is still governed by the provisions of KLU Order. It does not gives any power to the Government in the manner in which it could be restricted for the purpose of utilisation. In fact, once the land is found converted prior to 2008 and unfit for cultivation of any crops as referred in the KLU Order, the revenue authorities have no right in compelling land owner to retain the character of the property as such. This court in fact has considered the scope of power to be exercised by the revenue authorities in Archana Varghese Vs. District Collector, Pathanamthitta [2015 (2) KHC 39]. This court in Archana Varghese's case (supra) held as follows: